From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,f03ffdf470e3c559 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!news.k-dsl.de!news.eternal-september.org!news.motzarella.org!motzarella.org!registered.motzarella.org!Colin_Paul_Gloster From: Colin Paul Gloster Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Interesting performance quirk. Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 16:12:25 +0000 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Message-ID: References: <4903c066$0$28676$4d3efbfe@news.sover.net> <49045079$0$28711$4d3efbfe@news.sover.net> <4906f908$0$5781$4d3efbfe@news.sover.net> Reply-To: Colin Paul Gloster Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: registered.motzarella.org U2FsdGVkX1/i0P9iIELL/e1Ouq3WzJEbkh6eE+yIMSHsA3CVY/ufv/o5MCfDUCfyUid89wt42eg8xt12P+srFgA+3CjShPSnVsMwW1sAHpbbA3GWXp45a9/J8ViQkNBFp1JwcAN5IcRtOMYI+TB2bTYrUKYQLDDT X-Complaints-To: Please send complaints to abuse@motzarella.org with full headers NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 16:12:27 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <4906f908$0$5781$4d3efbfe@news.sover.net> X-Auth-Sender: U2FsdGVkX18Sd1bdxo9nWHJorRwjuR4sodiDb0yDgju373mGDbbpdYnraQ5Ib1cpxAJGqAxZ7+I= Cancel-Lock: sha1:YHwGiGUTTbTYFm272WLdcaC3wgY= X-X-Sender: Colin_Paul_Gloster@gian.fis.uc.pt Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:2525 Date: 2008-10-29T16:12:25+00:00 List-Id: In news:4904516f$0$28741$4d3efbfe@news.sover.net on October 26th, 2008, Peter C. Chapin submitted: |------------------------------------------------------------------------| |"[..] | | | |I am also planning to write a similar program in C using OpenSSL's | |Blowfish implementation. I want to get a point of comparison to see if | |my implementation has "reasonable" performance or not (here I'm assuming| |that OpenSSL is reasonable). I'm curious now if the C/OpenSSL version | |will also demonstrate this same performance quirk." | |------------------------------------------------------------------------| I had intended to reply with a claim that any language would be sped up in the emulated system, however instead in news:4906f908$0$5781$4d3efbfe@news.sover.net on Tue, 28 Oct 2008, Peter C. Chapin submitted: |------------------------------------------------------------------------| |"[..] | | | |In further developments... | | | |I wrote a version of the benchmark program in C that uses OpenSSL's | |Blowfish implementation. The program is the "same" in that it creates | |the same amount of data and processes it in the same way. The only | |significant difference is that it calls into OpenSSL. It's quite a bit | |faster. Right now I get | | | |Windows XP Laptop (GNAT GPL 2008 for the Ada, Cygwin gcc for the C) | |----- | |My Library => 11 MB/s (with -O2 option and no debugging support) | |OpenSSL => 65 MB/s (Wow!) | | | |SUSE Linux in a VM on the same box | |----- | |My Library => 25 MB/s (odd) | |OpenSSL => 65 MB/s (now this makes sense at least) | | | |[..]" | |------------------------------------------------------------------------| Earlier this year I had used QEMU on Windows (possibly not Windows XP) to have a GNU/Linux distribution (possibly RedHat) emulated. I ran a Bourne shell script or a Bourne Again SHell script in the emulated system which made thousands of fairly short I/O transactions. The emulated system including its pretend harddisk were kept small enough (no more than a few hundred megabytes) to be kept solely in the real physical primary memory instead of relying on virtual memory. It was faster than running the same script on Cygwin on the same machine. (The throughput of my shell script was faster in the emulated system, whereas the human user interface of the emulated system was dominated by how quickly it starts to respond instead of throughput, and suffered from sluggish latencies.) Conversely, on WWW.Debian.org/intro/why_debian it was claimed: !-------------------------------------------------------------------! !"If you are not already a GNU/Linux user, you may also enjoy the ! !following benefits: ! ! ! ![..] ! !Fast and easy on memory ! ! Other operating systems may be as fast in one or two areas, but! ! being based on GNU/Linux, Debian is lean and mean. Windows ! ! software run from GNU/Linux using an emulator sometimes runs ! ! faster than when run in the native environment. ! ![..]" ! !-------------------------------------------------------------------! That Debian webpage lacks important information for a fair comparison with Windows. However, I do not know why Peter C. Chapin's Ada code is sped up but OpenSSL is not. Yours sincerely, Colin Paul Gloster